About your Search

20121205
20121213
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
stimulating the economy without government interference. i think the thing to do is go right over the fiscal cliff. you'll raise some taxes, yes, that's true, you'll cut defense and some human services. this is the only way we'll have a significant bite out of this deficit. i think the market is going to like this. they say no right now, but when they see that this government is taking on the deficit in a serious way i think they will like it >> you don't think going over the cliff is armageddon? >> this is just nonsense, absolutely not. this is a bipartisan deal that was made. now both parties are trying to welch on their commitments. i think that's a mistake. >> steve, ben bernanke said today if we do go over the fiscal cliff, even if it's for a short period of time, it's going to be very costly and they do not have the tools to basically dig us out of it. do you believe if we go over the fiscal cliff it won't be as easy as the governor is suggesting? >> we're in trouble anyway this quarter and the next quarter and putting on taxes of any kind would be the wrong thing to do. sometimes the
for the economy. we can make the government use the taxpayers' money more efficiently, lock in some spending savings and do some long-term entitlement reforms to make sure americans feel like they can retire with dignity. >> i want to make sure we're talking about apples and apples here, which is so hard in this discussion. the $800 billion which the republicans put forward, which would be a cap on deductions, how does that compare with how far the information is prepared to go when it comes to raising revenue from capping deductions? >> we don't actually know what the republicans think they can do in that context yet, because they haven't told us how they would propose to raise the $800 billion. we don't know whose taxes would go up. we don't know the mixes of rates and limitations they would support. we think there's a good case as part of an agreement alongside a tax increase on the wealthiest 2% of americans. we think with that mix of rates and deductions, we can reach agreement on something that's very good for the country. >> do you have a number? is there a number that the administrat
. roughly 16% of aig shares. this is a mayjor coupe for the government. still at 33 bucks even though it's down after-hours up from the re-ipo after the financial crisis. >> and it's something that will make the ceo very, very happy. the last couple times he's been on this program, he has been campaigning publicly for the government to do just that. he wants them off his balance sheet and off his back. >> it was an unpopular risk to begin with. so brings this all into the era. >> as kayla pointed out, it turned out to be profitable for the country. >> absolutely. >>> in the meantime, death tax would jump. we talk about why it might cost someone's heirs a ton of money if their die on new year's day versus new year's eve. >> and later bmw and mercedes are running neck and neck for the best luxury maker in the country. phil lebeau has the huge deal story coming up. if you think running a restaurant is hard, try running four. fortunately we've got ink. it gives us 5x the rewards on our internet, phone charges and cable, plus at office supply stores. rewards we put right back into our busines
do go over the cliff, and some say let's go over the cliff. all these complaints about government spending too much, so let's just take it for what it's worth, go over the cliff and cut out that government spending, and i find it interesting that a lot of the same people that want the government to cut back on spending kind of don't want it because of the markets, so you can't really have your cake and eat it, too. if we do go over the cliff there will be pullback in the market. >> what's the strategy though? what's the strategy? let's put aside speculation of going over or not going over. what's the strategy going into year end? where do you want exposure in terms of equities? >> definitely want to be long. i certainly wouldn't want to go short because you don't want to go into this uncertainty making decisions on something you don't know is going to happen. you just don't know what the taxes are or what's going to come about, so i really wouldn't make my decisions based on an unknown. i would pick steady solid names and stick with them and go long. >> but we know taxes are proba
taxpayer or any group of people who depend on government spending can be exempted from the serious problem that we have that's caused by this deficit is a mistake. everybody is going to have to pay for this. >> dawn, right or wrong, the defense industry has this reputation of being bloated, overcharging. are we at a point where we could afford to make cuts in defense spending to try and satisfy the needs of lowering the deficit in this country? >> you know, the real issue we've already seen through the budget control act, the defense has already witnessed significant cuts. i think when you're looking at the resolution here, resolving the negotiations so we don't go to the fiscal cliff, the real issue is everybody's got to participate. it's got to be a balanced approach. last monday -- well, earlier this week, 130 ceos in the aerospace defense industry sent a letter to the president saying we're urging a bipart son approach to this. it's got to be balanced. nobody is saying that defense isn't going to share in that. right now, sequestration, $600 billion, that's not a fair share. >> can i p
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5